Posted on 09/07/2009 10:41:31 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Point taken. I too have those I know who fall on opposite sides of this issue. You can, however, choose to ignore “those who claim to be Christians and deny Jesus Christ in the same breath” for their intent is to draw you away from your original point into a battle between who is and who ain’t. And it seems to work.
My point was that you have clearly identified one tactic, don’t miss the others.
Leo
How do you know that a reality that is describable by mathematics has “nothing” to do with evolution? Do you have any evidence that a reality that is not describable by mathematics is also capable of evolution? As for the second question, it would appear that you are admitting that the Darwinists have nothing to compete the argument from design...and on that score, I wholeheartedly agree with you.
You are not the first to tell me this, so perhaps it is time I at least starting thinking about it. All the best—GGG
If you object to Creation on the grounds that it is religious, then you should reject Darwin’s evo-religious creation myth as well. If you don’t reject both for the same reason, then you are just choosing one religion over another...which, of course, would mean that you object to Cretion on partisan religious grounds.
That is the problem for Darwinism posed or at least implied by the article as I see it.
Talk about a lottery of cosmic proportions. Firt a universe of laws pops out of a big bang that explodes out of “nothing,” and then minds are created by random processes (plus survival) that just happen to be able to comprehend and describe those laws. I guess miracles are perfectly ok in the world of evolution so long as God had nothing to do with them.
Also, I have never said that religious people should have no input into the debate. I don't believe in censorship (except in rare cases and this isn't one of them). I merely call for intellectual honesty and reject such pseudo-scientific ideas as Intelligent Design. It's not science. It's a repackaging of the Genesis story with a phony shell of specious arguments.
As far as Newton is concerned, he clearly was religious, but that didn't affect his mathematical genius. Einstein was certainly not religious, and in his younger days (when he published his theories) adamantly rejected such unscientific notions.
Intellectual honesty is all I ask for. I'll take the first step and say that I do not believe in the literal truth of the Genesis creation story. I think it's a myth. Will you now stand up and say that you don't believe in the Theory of Evolution because it conflicts with Genesis?
If you want intellectual honest, start with yourself by declaring that you accept Darwin’s evo-religious creation myth on religious grounds, and that you oppose Creation/ID on religious grounds. As for me, I accept intelligent design on scientific grounds, whereas I accept Creation on religious grounds (but that also happens to be backed up by a large body of scientific research...as would be expected if Creation, as the Bible says, is true).
I reject Creation on the grounds that it's untrue. As for Evolution, it's not a religion but a scientific theory. Look up in the dictionary the definition of "religion" and you'll see that. Why do you call it a religion?
Evolution begins with a naturalistic faith assumption that cannot be proven. As such, it is a faithbased religion that only seeks answers within its faithbased assumption.
==I reject Creation on the grounds that it’s untrue.
Ah, now we’re getting somewhere. Could you please point to the evidence that proves that Creation isn’t true? Thank you.
Also, what are your thoughts on Darwin’s main prediction, namely his so-called “Tree of Life” being falsified? Does that make you doubt your evo-religion, or is your faith in the same just as strong as ever?
And this is Intellectual Honesty, that there can be no debate as to whether humans evolved or were designed?? This is certainly debate censorship.
My belief is that some day the secret of photographic memory will be solved and that many will have the capability to retain vast databases. My gut feel is that contrary modes of learning make this almost impossible for most. My son-in-law has photographic and complete verbal memory storage. This is most interesting.
As for speed, some have mathematical speeds which are quite astounding. Yet for raw computational speed at multiple numbers, computers seem greater. But again, my impression is that the human mind is computing more varied inputs constantly than we can comprehend.
I find it extremely arrogant to project philosophies upon others and to say there is no debate when there clearly is one is such.
This current age is riotous with folks trying to tell us what the 'Truth' is yet saying 'Truth' is relative relative to the person at the same time. The scientific method of reproducibility despite challenges is at the heart of the publics belief in science itself. Take away the intellectual challenge and little of that is new will be found.
More sophistry. If you have to use a phrase such as "faithbased religion" then you're on thin ice. What about plate tectonics? Do you object to that on the same grounds? Surely God's creation can't shift around like that? How about nucleosynthesis? Or is it what I said, that you have a special objection to evolution because of apes?
“I would also like to say that labeling Darwin’s theory as ‘Darwinism’ is a tactic designed to make the theory out to be some kind of evil ideology like communism.”
I’d say that the use of the term Darwinism is also an attempt to frame the debate as one religious idea against another. It’s pretty solid evidence that the creationists who employ such a tactic see weakness in their own religiously derived creation story.
Darwinism is a valid term to describe the ideas of Darwin, usually as a way of differing his ideas from modern evolutionary synthesis.
“Darwinism, Darwinist” are terms used by evolutionists to refer to themselves frequently, Gould being the first, but not only one, that cames to mind.
The Pythagorean Theorem came not from Pythagoras the Mathematician but from Pythagoras the Mystic, Vegetarian, Transmigration of the Soul, Deep Truth in Geometric Shapes believer. It was ideology not geometry or mathematics.
“But since we're descended from ugly, smelly apes that scratch themselves and masturbate in public...”
You've just spent too much time with your relatives in San Francisco.
When you're intellectually honest enough to say that you are a Darwinist because it gives you an excuse not to feel responsible to God I'll listen.
You're twisting my words. I didn't say that reality had nothing to do with evolution. I said that the question of why reality is describable that way has nothing to do with evolution. Lest you twist my words further, I'm not arguing that evolution does not require a reality describable by mathematics; I'm saying that the question of why reality is like that isn't one the theory of evolution tries to answer.
Do you have any evidence that a reality that is not describable by mathematics is also capable of evolution?
Huh? Are you asking me if I have evidence for what goes on in some other reality? Uh, no. There's a guy I see on the street sometimes who seems to, though--wanna ask him?
As for the second question, it would appear that you are admitting that the Darwinists have nothing to compete the argument from design...and on that score, I wholeheartedly agree with you.
To whatever extent "we don't know yet" is no competition for "God did it," you're right. But "God did it" and "the gods did it" have been offered as answers for whatever we don't know for millennia. It's not much of an answer--it gets shown to be wrong over and over, and it doesn't offer any basis for further investigation. Unless you want to propose a hypothesis for what the designer did, and when, and where to produce the human mind and some experiments to find it, it's an empty explanation.
You know, I once saw a woman sawed in half at a magic show, but she was miraculously unharmed. Creation is untrue for the same reason. It's impossible on the face of it. I don't believe in magic. You do.
BTW, God didn't write the bible. Some old guys Jewish guys did. Bigamists at that. What the bleep did they know? They where just sheepherders with too much time on their hands. They didn't like the pagan religions of time so they invented their own. There's no mystery here, except for how otherwise rational adults can abandon all their critical faculties and embrace the most fatuous nonsense where religion is concerned.
Human beings who have not been brainwashed by our Temple of Darwin indoctrination centers into believing that we descended from apes have a natural aversion to having our ancestry connected to apes, or any other non-human animal.
And what about plate tectonics? On what basis are you determining that God’s creation can’t move? Part of God’s creation moved with each new letter that was added to the Bible. Part of God’s creation moved on each new day of creation. Part of God’s creation moved when the fountains of the great deep opened and flooded the Earth.
And what about nucleosynthesis? Do you even know what that means?...or how it relates to creation cosmology?
PS You never answered my question. You said that you don’t believe in biblical creation because it is “false.” Again, where is the evidence that falsifies biblical creation?
“For the second question, I can’t improve on the quoted Darwinist’s answer: “That’s an interesting question. Biologists investigating the evolution of the human brain are attempting to answer it.”
?????
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.